netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] net: bridge: add control of bum flooding to bridge itself

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:09:28 +0200
From:   Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@...il.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] net: bridge: add control of bum flooding to bridge itself

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:58, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org> wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 12:51, Joachim Wiberg wrote:
>> Interesting, you mean by speculatively setting local_rcv = true and
>> postpone the decsion to br_pass_frame_up(), right?  Yeah that would
>> indeed be a bit more work.
> Yes, I was thinking maybe local_rcv can become an enum with an exact reason for the
> local_rcv, so if it's > 0 do the local_rcv and br_pass_frame_up() then
> can make a proper decision without passing all of the vars. I haven't tried it,
> so not sure if it's feasible. :)

Ah, yeah that could definitely work. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! :)